Brian Schatz on Environment

Received perfect score from League of Conservation Voters

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) launched advertisements in Hawaii to highlight incumbent Sen. Brian Schatz' (D) environmental record in the primary race for his Senate seat. Schatz has backed a national carbon tax and the Environmental Protection
Agency's carbon emissions limits for power plants, and earned a rare perfect score on LCV's environmental scorecard last year.

"Hawaii has a special relationship with nature and our climate," the voiceover in the television ad says. "Climate change
threatens our way of life. It's why Brian Schatz is holding corporate polluters that cause it accountable, taking strong action to reduce carbon pollution."

LCV is spending about $380,000 on the campaign. LCV's senior vice president said that
Schatz is "tirelessly leading the fight to halt the climate change that will devastate Hawaii and is fighting to and hold corporate polluters accountable by requiring them to slash their emissions."

Genetically modified foods aren't unhealthy

Hanabusa said she does not believe genetically modified foods are unhealthy and said she stands with farmers and scientists on the issue. In a widening policy split, she said Schatz's support for state and county home rule on
GMO regulation would not work.

"You cannot have potentially four different sets of legislation or statutes to govern what can be grown by our farmers," she said. "That would, in and of itself,
I believe, kill agriculture, because how can they survive if they have one set of rules in one area, and another. And as someone who wants to be the United States senator, or is the United States senator, look at it in terms of the
United States Constitution--supremacy clause and commerce clause."

Hanabusa, however, said the states, and not the federal government, should determine whether marijuana should be legalized.

Strike a balance between growth and land preservation

Although we live in a beautiful state, Hawai'i has rapidly and radically changed its landscape to accommodate growth in a relatively short period of time. Looking forward, we must find ways to sensibly manage this development. We have to strike a balance
between growth that is good for our economy and the preservation of Hawai'i lands that make these Islands so special.

The Legacy Lands Act would establish permanent and adequate funding for land conservation and the preservation of open spaces and
scenic resources. This includes watershed protection, coastal preservation, flood prevention, parks, habitat protection, cultural preservation and agricultural production.

The law would work [via] an increase of the conveyance tax, which is assessed
on the seller of any property, based on the purchase price. Currently, the tax is 0.1 percent on all land transactions. The conveyance tax revenues are expected to generate $36 million per year.

Voted YES on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems.

Whitehouse Amdt. No. 803 to S.Amdt. 799 to S. 601 (Water Resources Development Act of 2013): To create the National Endowment for the Oceans to promote the protection and conservation of United States ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes: Mr. WHITEHOUSE: This measure was part of the RESTORE Act, [but] this piece of it fell out of the bargain. If you supported the RESTORE Act, you have already supported this bill. If you believe that deals should be deals in the Senate, then you should support this bill. It is very important that we as a body support this bill. It does not create a single extra bureaucracy or person. It works within the existing government, and it adds no funding.

MississippiRiverDelta.org Summary of RESTORE Act: The Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act (RESTORE Act) dedicates 80% of all
Clean Water Act penalties paid by those responsible for the 2010 gulf oil disaster to Gulf Coast restoration.

Proponent's press release supporting Yes vote: The National Endowment for the Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes Act would provide steady funding that universities, non-profit organizations, and government agencies can count on every year to support research and restoration projects. It would be funded primarily by dedicating 12.5% of revenues from offshore energy development, including oil, gas, and renewable energy. Revenue is generated through offshore lease sales and production based royalty payments. Funds from the Endowment would be distributed through a competitive grant program to fund projects to restore habitat, manage fisheries, plan for sustainable coastal development, enhance ocean monitoring and research activities, acquire coastal properties for preservation, and relocate critical coastal infrastructure.

Reference: National Endowment for the Oceans;
Bill S.Amdt. 803
; vote number 13-SV116
on May 8, 2013

Sponsored enforcing against illegal ocean fishing.

Authorizes additional enforcement measures relating to search or inspection of facilities or conveyances, records inspection, shipment detention, arrest, search and seizure, and service of civil or criminal process.

Requires identification and listing of nations that violate conservation and management measures required under an international fishery management agreement to which the US is a party.

Authorizes international cooperation and assistance, including grants, to help other nations achieve sustainable fisheries.

Proponent's argument for bill:(by Mission Blue): Recognizing the growing threat posed by foreign illegal fishing, the International Fisheries Stewardship and Enforcement Act would safeguard U.S. ports, strengthen enforcement, and protect American fishing interests. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing spans the globe, threatening legitimate fishing operations, undermining sustainable fisheries management, and stealing a vital resource from needy communities and the world economy. Criminal fishing worldwide is estimated to take $10 billion to $23.5 billion worth of seafood annually, or 11 million to 26 million tons of fish--three to six times more fish than the entire U.S. commercial fishing industry catches legally every year.

Require labeling genetically engineered food.

Schatz signed Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act

Congressional Summary:

[Require labeling] any food that has been genetically engineered or contains genetically engineered ingredients.

Defines "genetically engineered" (GE) as a material intended for human consumption that is an organism produced through the intentional use of genetic engineering, or its progeny, without regard to whether the altered molecular or cellular characteristics of the organism are detectable.

Discussion of pro/con (Huffington Post 4/25/2013):

Polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans--over 90%--supports mandatory labeling of foods with GE ingredients. 64 other countries already require such labels. However, strong opposition from the agriculture and biotech industries has scuttled proposals for GMO (Genetically-Modified Organisms) labeling laws in the past. The most recent and high-profile of these failed attempts at a GMO labeling requirement was California's Proposition 37, which was narrowly
defeated after opponents spent $50 million lobbying against it. "Unfortunately, advocates of mandatory GMO labeling are working an agenda to vilify biotechnology and scare consumers away from safe and healthful food products," a Biotechnology Industry Organization spokeswoman wrote.

Argument in opposition (Food Democracy Now 5/26/2012):

Exactly 20 years ago today, the first Bush administration declared genetically engineered foods to be "substantially equivalent" to foods that farmers had traditionally bred for thousands of years. With this single policy, the US government radically altered the food supply, introducing novel genes into our food that had never before been consumed by humans. Corporate executives at Monsanto colluded with elected officials to make sure that their new "products" were placed onto the market as quickly as possible. Two decades later, Americans are still denied the basic right to know what's in their food because of this infamous policy.